death penalty news March 7, 2005
USA: Juveniles and Death Row: A Landmark Ruling (8 Letters) To the Editor: Re "Supreme Court, 5-4, Forbids Execution in Juvenile Crime" (front page, March 2): The Supreme Court took a step in the right direction on Tuesday by making it illegal to execute those who commit crimes before their 18th birthday. The real point, however, is that we should not be executing anyone for any crime. There are a variety of reasons offered for not executing criminals, ranging from the reality that we often arrest the wrong person to prosecutorial discretion in deciding who should be punished by death. As important as those arguments are, the real reason is that we now know as a society that the death penalty does not make us safer and is therefore cruel and unusual punishment. Proponents of the death penalty should not be confused. Those of us who believe otherwise are not any less horrified by violent crimes. Killing a person in self-defense is certainly warranted, but once an offender is in custody and is no longer a danger, the killing should stop. That is what the Constitution must mean today given what we know about human behavior. Our country's morality should stand for the proposition that we kill only when there is no other reasonable way to protect ourselves. Bruce Neuman East Hampton, N.Y., March 2, 2005 To the Editor: Re "Justice for Juveniles" (editorial, March 2): You refer to the "moral isolation" of the United States in permitting the execution of juveniles, a practice that will now end with the Supreme Court's decision. I applaud this moral isolation. The court's decision flew in the face of 200 years of recognition by Americans that we should not defer to other countries. Our country was uniquely formed by the basic principles in the Declaration of Independence: that all men are created equal, enjoying certain inalienable rights, and that our government exists to protect those rights. By deferring to international opinion, the Supreme Court has shown that it has forgotten what makes the United States of America special in the world. When it comes to defending rights, moral isolationism is good for America. Bill Decker San Diego, March 2, 2005 To the Editor: In the wisdom of the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision taking away capital punishment for people who commit murder under 18, the decision to end capital punishment altogether should be the next step. Crime is here to stay, but the punishment should not be death. Are we too quick to turn to executions? If capital punishment is the correct way, why is the United States one of the only two developed countries that routinely use it? The function of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of both the majority and minorities. Do we live in a time when we are justified in executing citizens because of a fear or because it is right? We have outgrown the death penalty. It will take a lot to convince the American people of that as well as the justices of the Supreme Court, but the time is ripe. It is time to recognize that with more executions of adults, the more errors we will make. The morality of executions should be up for discussion. The time is now to rethink our system of punishment. Roslyn Muraskin Middle Island, N.Y., March 2, 2005 The writer is a professor of criminal justice at the C. W. Post campus, Long Island University. To the Editor: The Supreme Court's decision to forbid the execution of those who committed crimes before the age of 18, despite the heinous nature of the offense in the case under consideration, was a logical extension of earlier court decisions that forbid the imposition of the death penalty in cases involving juveniles under 16 and those adjudged mentally retarded. In this sense, the court was not charting completely new waters, since 30 states already forbid death penalty sentences in juvenile cases. More important, the narrow 5-to-4 majority decision reflected the split in public opinion concerning whether the use of the death penalty in capital crimes was morally warranted. If it is any consolation to those who believed that the death penalty was warranted in the case, the young defendant will be spending the rest of his life in prison. But for members of the public who view the imposition of the death penalty as inappropriate and reprehensible, the court's decision stands out as a bright beacon of morally righteous light. Cy Shain San Francisco, March 2, 2005 To the Editor: If a person is old enough to kill, he deserves the ultimate punishment. Punishment should fit the crime. Death for a death is not cruel, nor is it unusual; death for shoplifting would be cruel and unusual. Justices who say they look to other countries for their thoughts on cases should be removed from the bench; other countries have no bearing in what we do in this country, under our Constitution. Fred Silhanek Louisville, Ky., March 2, 2005 To the Editor: While I rejoice at the Supreme Court ruling and that our country has finally embraced a semblance of reason in the matter of the death penalty, I'm disgusted that we've essentially required guidance from the rest of the world in its entirety to show us the path away from cruelty. It is especially embarrassing that the last seven countries to disavow juvenile execution before us - Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, China and Congo - are generally singled out for their ignorance of civil rights. I believe that it also remains a significant tragedy that there are still four very learned people sitting on our Supreme Court who continue to try to rationalize such barbarity. Wade Stone New York, March 2, 2005 To the Editor: Justice Antonin Scalia, in his death penalty dissent, misconstrues the majority opinion. Justice Scalia writes, "The basic premise of the court's argument - that American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world - ought to be rejected out of hand." This is not what Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. What he wrote was that "the opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions" (excerpts from opinions, March 2). Further, many Americans believe that the world should conform to our legal principles (the idea of spreading democracy abroad). Why should we teach other countries but not learn from them when we clearly have something to learn? The majority decision was based on changing standards at home. Justice Scalia's dissent is an appeal to nativism and fear of anything foreign simply because of its origin. He should know better, and probably does. Thomas N. Beck East Windsor, N.J., March 2, 2005 To the Editor: The Supreme Court's decision to raise the age level for the death penalty is most welcome to those who believe in recognizing social change as a basis for such decisions. How refreshing that the same court reversed its own decision of 16 years ago. Moving on. For Justice Antonin Scalia to dissent on the grounds that the court should not be governed by "the subjective views of five members of this court" and world opinion sounds like a campaign speech to his right-wing constituency to support his elevation to the anticipated vacancy of chief justice. He must mean that five justices are sufficient only when he happens to be one of them. Jack Hughes Alexandria, Va., March 2, 2005 To the Editor: Re "Juveniles and Death Row: A Landmark Ruling" (letters, March 3): A letter writer cites our Declaration of Independence for the proposition that we ought never take "international opinion" into account in formulating our public policy. If in 1776 we had not had "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind," the declaration would have never been written in the first place. Michael J. Zydney Mannheimer Highland Heights, Ky., March 3, 2005 (source: Letters to the Editor, New York Times)
